Unverified Voracity Punches A Police Horse, Probably
Sponsor note. Hey, if you happen to be in Philadelphia and punched a police horse last night, you need a lawyer. Please don't call Richard Hoeg, who does not handle that kind of law at all.
![hoeglaw_thumb[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/hoeglaw_thumb[1]_thumb.jpg)
But if you had the idea for a company that sells football helmets for police horses, then you would call Richard Hoeg, who does do that kind of law: contracts, LLCs, S corps, and the like, for entrepreneurial sorts who can survey the urban chaos our Super Bowl inflicts on local communities and finds a way to make it slightly better. For horses. Or people, I guess. If you have a company that helps people, Hoeg Law will also help you. I've never heard Richard say "we only handle horse companies." And that's the sort of thing that I think you'd bring up. Right?
The Gang Wins The Super Bowl, thanks to Brandon Graham. Obligatory Philly chaos:
I just got hit with a parking light pic.twitter.com/FflzyY5JDe
— adam ferrone (@_rone) February 5, 2018
Congratulations to Brandon Graham, who was one of the few bright spots on the whole dang team when he was an upperclassman. I remember doing the UFRs for his senior year and pleading with anyone to listen to me that dude was an All-American. Nobody did except maybe Matt Hinton(?). Graham worked his ass off despite the very Rich Rod carnage all around him and was deservedly drafted in the first round; took him a minute to find his footing but that'll do. Everyone who's met him also thinks he's the best dude ever.
In other Super Bowl takes, this article from SBN was extremely prescient after watching that Big 12-ass game:
Last September, Sonny Dykes sat to watch the NFL’s season-opening game between the Chiefs and Patriots. Dykes, recently the head coach at Cal and then an offensive analyst at TCU, has coached college football since he was a graduate assistant at Kentucky in 1997. He noticed something about the pro game he was watching.
“Watching that game, I remember thinking, ‘This looks like a college football game,’” Dykes tells SB Nation. “They were both playing kind of college offenses, were really diverse in what they were doing, were using a lot of misdirection, were using some quarterback run, both teams. I thought, ‘Wow, this is kind of fun to watch.’”
The Chiefs used a series of misdirection and option plays that have long been common in the college game. They conned New England’s defense all night and scored 42 points in a surprising win. The Chiefs were near the tip of a spear that now includes pretty much the whole league, including the team they beat that night and the Eagles team the Patriots will play in Super Bowl 52.
“Ten years ago or maybe eight years ago, even, everybody in the NFL ran the same offense,” Dykes, now SMU’s head coach, says. “It was all kind of an I-formation, under center, you know; everybody ran the same stuff. All of a sudden, you started seeing a little bit of the college game proliferate a little bit in the NFL.”
New England didn't punt, gained 600 yards, and lost. Oh and there were multiple missed extra points. Big 12? Big 12.
The other thing that jumped out at me as I watched the second of two NFL games I consume annually: holy hell that catch rule. Philly's winning touchdown saw the WR catch the ball, get two feet down, and then take a full step to the endzone before he hit the ground. Both Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth were absolutely convinced it was not a catch.
The winning moment...?
— NFL UK (@NFLUK) February 5, 2018
Nick Foles Zach Ertz for the touchdown!#SBLII | #FlyEaglesFly pic.twitter.com/mEZVcooMl3
Which is nuts, because... uh, that's nuts. I will repeat my previous assertion: once you get foot #3 down by taking a step you're a runner and have caught the ball. That's a catch, and the Pittsburgh play earlier isn't.
Also, in the fourth quarter of a tight, all offense Super Bowl, Cris Collinsworth marveled that the football game he was watching could possibly live up to the halftime show. This was after several hundred plain old play action passes were dubbed "RPOs," like—just hypothetically—a two year old who had just discovered the word "wine" at Thanksgiving and may have repeated it at maximum volume for the sheer delight several hundred times.
I just dunno man.
Sample size! I have maybe been googling David DeJulius's free throw stats, for no reason, really. This is what I have found.
Hooray! Also, here's this from that Orr game when he blew up:
DeJulius continued his strong play in the second half and was extremely efficient, finishing with 49 points on 13-of-19, including 9-of-11 from deep range in the 92-82 victory. He also converted 14-of-15 free throws and had seven assists and three turnovers.
I get nervous when they show him shooting just one free throw in the highlight videos but apparently that's just because free throws are boring. May they again be boring.
Also in high school stat news, Colin Castleton might be able to continue Michigan's stretch five offense...
Miller said he runs a motion offense and moves Castleton around the court to try and make it harder for teams to focus on him. "We let him back screen, we get him on the perimeter and let him flare and curl to the basket," Miller said. "We're perfectly fine with him shooting 3s." In fact, Castleton is his team's best 3-point shooter at 38 percent.
...after a year of eating nothing but meatballs.
Also also:
Michigan commit Adrien Nunez had a solid 2 outings here at the National Prep Invitational. The 6-5 SG can really knock down shots from 3. Great shot mechanics.
— Travis Branham (@T_Branham22) February 2, 2018
No word on his free throws though.
Boiled up. Purdue AD Mitch Daniels writes an op-ed for the Washington Post about the one-and-done rule being bad and dumb, and while he's necessarily compromised by being the head of an organization that doesn't actually pay its most important labor, he still brings more heat at the NCAA than I've seen from someone inside the sausage factory:
When the FBI revealed its findings about the corrupt connections among shoe companies, agents, a few big-time college programs and coaches, and the Amateur Athletic Union or AAU (the first “A” increasingly looks like a misnomer), no one near the sport was shocked. The existence of this part of the cesspool has been in plain view for years. Those in a position to stop the scandals spawned by the “one-and-done” era — in which many top-tier players were required to enroll in college for one year before bolting for the NBA — have been either powerless to do so or actively interested in perpetuating the status quo.
When it was discovered that, at what we’ve always considered an academically admirable school, championships had been won by teams loaded with players who took completely phony classes, most of us were sincerely shocked. We were stunned again when, after years of cogitation, the NCAA delivered a penalty of . . . nothing. It was a final confession of futility, confirming the necessity of this special commission, if any meaningful change is going to happen from the collegiate end.
Unfortunately none of his policy solutions—removing freshman eligibility, leaving early entry scholarships filled for four years, or adopting the college baseball zero-or-three model—are, like, good. Or even implementable, in the baseball case. I still fail to see how one-and-done stands up legally since the collective bargaining of the NBAPA is taking away rights from people who aren't members; IANAL but I'm surprised one-and-done hasn't been sued into oblivion by some Lavar Ball sort.
Etc.: ESPN's Paula Lavigne on the OTL investigation of MSU. PSDs no longer tax deductible. Cooper Marody executes some jock jams.
February 5th, 2018 at 4:42 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 4:42 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 1:28 PM ^
Brian, what do you think would be the best solution to the issues one-and-done causes? Would removing the rule be feasible or no?
February 5th, 2018 at 1:45 PM ^
It's not an NCAA rule. It's an NBA rule. A player must be at least one year removed from high school before they are eligible for the NBA draft.
February 5th, 2018 at 4:48 PM ^
btw, Mitch Daniels' notion on freshman eligibility (and remember Daniels didn't make any hard pronouncements or policy proposals; he just discussed some possible solutions to what he rightly regards as a problem in the context of serious higher education) is similar to another flame-throwing political radical /s/ ... John U. Bacon.
Discussed previously on MGoBlog here:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/freshman-ineligibility-john-u-bacon
A rather good discussion too, by all the participants very much including Mr. Vincent Smith.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:29 PM ^
The issue was thoroughly litigated when Maurice Clarett sued the NFL. Basically, they are regulating their own labor relations. They aren't taking anything away from anyone because the non-NBA (or NFL) individuals don't have a right to be employed by a particular employer.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:47 PM ^
but even after reading some of the relevant decisions, this never made any sense to me. Seems like such an obvious conflict of interest to allow the league and players' union to collude in their collective bargaining to keep others out of the pool of eligible players. And the "don't have a right" argument overlooks the monopoly position of the professional leagues -- sure, a player can go elsewhere but, uh, there's nowhere else to go.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:52 PM ^
I'm on the same side as you. When I made the, "professional sports leagues are monopolies" argument, the counter-argument presented to me was, what about Canada? As if that's the same thing at all.
February 5th, 2018 at 4:22 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 4:54 PM ^
Actually, the legal system makes a distinction between a reasonably viable alternative. It obviously isn't to the same degree, but the whole "separate but equal" argument fails because of it, especially when a limitation is due to a factor beyond someone's control (e.g. age). An argument the leagues tend to make is that it's for the players' safety; that to play at this level at a physically immature level is dangeorus to their health. It's a BS argument, but nobody has really taken it to task because (a) it's usually for a short amount of time, so it's not like they are barred forever, and (b) they could get blackballed in the process and lose millions.
The NBA and the NFL are private organizations, and they have wider latitude than a government agency in their employment requirements. But if someone wanted to mount a legitimate action against the leagues for the x-and-done rule, I think they'd have a solid argument.
February 5th, 2018 at 6:20 PM ^
And yet, Clarrett lost when he sued the NFL for a more onerous restriction - you must be out of HS for 3 years before an NFL team will employ you. You are mixing up so many legal points that I hardly know where to start.
The phrase "separate but equal" comes from Brown v. Board of Education which addressed racial discrimination in school admissions. The law in question was subjected to review under a "strict scrutiny" standard and failed. Age (and sex) discrimination are reviewed under a lesser standard because the Supreme Court recognizes that there may be some legitimate reasons for making distinctions on that basis. (It should be noted that the Supreme Court has said that the civil rights laws have the same reach as the Constitution so there is effectively little distinction in employment rights in the private and public sectors). Rules prohibiting age discrimination are almost always to protect the elderly, not the young. In California you must be 40 years old before the law prohibiting age discrimination applies to you.
February 6th, 2018 at 12:04 PM ^
As you note, California's law (FEHA) only covers age discrimination for those over 40 from discrimination, not *any* age discrimination. The same is true of the federal law (ADEA). It still could be an anti-trust issue, but under a discrimination theory if fails on a national level.
Some states (Michigan being one of them) have age discrimination laws that don't make this differentiation in over 40/under 40, but it's not universal.
February 6th, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^
I totally recognize the mixing of legal standards. As I said, the Brown v. Board of Education was based on racial discrimination and ruled that seperate schools for children based on race were unconstitutional. As you noted, age is a suspect classification that is "lesser" than race, ethnicity, or nationality. I wasn't arguing that they should be treated to the same degree, but only as a counter to the "they can play in Canada" argument put forth. It wasn't a purely legal argument; I'm not an employment lawyer so I couldn't tell you what the current case law states for acceptable limitations on employment by a private organization. The CFL, the XFL, all the semi-pro leagues that pop in and out of existence, all are not equal to the NFL and thus restrict a person's ability to find a viable alternative.
As for the Clarrett (and the Williams case that ran concurrently), the lower court actually ruled for Clarrett that the age restriction violated anti-trust, then the NFL won on appeal by arguing that since it was collectively-bargained restriction by the player's union, it wasn't subject to anti-trust. But as Brian (and others) have argued, that group doesn't represent college players, only dues-paying NFL players. So there is an inherent limitation in that argument because the affected parties have no ability to participate in the limitation placed on them. Given the movement we've seen in the past decade to limit the leagues' anti-trust protections, I'm not sure that argument would carry as much water anyway.
Also, civil rights and age discrimination are not purely 1-to-1 coverage. History is littered with cases trying to tease out the distinction between public and private organizations as it relates to employment of certain suspect groups, accomodations for people with disabilities, etc. And players are not technically employed by the NFL; they are hired by the member teams, which can be subject to other rules and requirements (both local and national) that may not affect the NFL. For example, while the ADEA only covers people discriminated against over 40 and was upheld by Cline, state laws (such as in Michigan) also protect people under 40. So its certainly not a set rule.
My larger point is that I fully expect someone to bring this suit, mostl lilely against the NBA, in the near future. Assuming it is set case law seems foolish.
February 6th, 2018 at 1:36 PM ^
This is a valid point. It is also true that organizations and their members are subject to certain state and federal laws. The dispositive factor, I believe, will be the determination that federal labor law, which allows the negotiation of the restriction, pre-empts state law to the contrary.
February 6th, 2018 at 3:34 PM ^
You're probably right about the federal labor law being the determining factor here, though with the earlier decision being based on anti-trust, I have no idea if the courts still feel it's a labor issue or not. If it's still basically an anti-trust case, then we get into Sherman Act preemption and all that jazz, and good luck figuring out how a court would rule with that.
I think practically speaking the leagues figure that nobody would take a chance possibly getting black-balled (which we've seen both the NBA and especially the NFL do at times) over a year or two, so they are comfortable with their position. But take someone like Lavar Ball and maybe you could see someone go after this restriction, at which point I'd really like to know what happens.
February 5th, 2018 at 3:46 PM ^
That's what collective bargaining is. It would be a violation of anti-trust laws if it weren't exempted. Congress has determined that the benefits of the arrangement outweigh the disadvantages.
February 6th, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^
The rule that collective bargaining is exempt from antitrust law is a rule made by the courts, not Congress. As already noted in this thread, the district court in Clarett's case determined that the rule should not apply, partly on the ground that it would be unfair to allow the parties to a collective bargaining agreement to impose restrictions that don't limit them, but only outsiders (i.e., college athletes that want to join the league). Although the court of appeals disagreed, it's hardly a foregone conclusion that any future cases will come out the same way. The rationale that parties have to collude in order to collectively bargain doesn't really apply to the sort of collusion that is directed solely at outside non-parties.
February 5th, 2018 at 5:12 PM ^
My understanding with regards to the football rule was the NFL did not think kids out of high school would be able to compete physically with men in their 20's and 30's who had been in professional weight training programs. In essence, the rule was to insure kids were not getting hurt. That may be an archaic view now with how weight training has evolved. But the argument has stood the test of time and I still generally agree with it.
I don't understand the basis for the NBA rule. There really is no physical difference for many of these kids after attending college for just one year. I originally thought the issue had more to do with maturity because the NBA was getting such bad publicity for many of their young players not meshing well with verterans and doing dumb stuff in public. However, since the rule has been in effect, it has been shown that many of the one and done basically figure out how to survive college for six months just to move on. That doesn't really build maturity.
February 5th, 2018 at 5:41 PM ^
Re: The NBA's one-and-done rule:
I don't think we have any data about the maturity of the players. Yeah, there are some guys who just scrape by and stay eligible for 6 months, but that, plus the mere fact of an extra year without millions of dollars, could potentially be beneficial. No idea, really.
But isn't part of the value of the rule that it filters out a lot of HS early entries that really shouldn't be going to the NBA? I seem to recall that in the year or two before the rule came along that more HS guys were declaring for the draft than there were draft positions available to pick them.
So this rule, as much as everything, forces kids to plan for a year of college (and thus care enough about school to at least maintain the illusion of academic eligibility) and helps some of them realize how far they have to go before they make the decision to forfeit their college eligibility. Combine that with the excellent draft evaluation process and you have a system that better helps guys make wise choices about their future.
Matthews was a 5-star, wasn't he? He's the kind of guy that in the old system might declare for the NBA draft, who instead had to at least make NCAA requirements to get into Kentucky. It turns out he wasn't draft-ready yet, so now he's getting a good education at Michigan, and even if he were to leave after this year (unlikely, I suspect) he only has a year or so to finish and he's already in the program.
I'm not saying that the 1-and-done rule is perfect or even the correct option (I think there should be some kind of major junior-style option for late high school/early college age), but it seems to have some benefits both for the league and the players.
February 5th, 2018 at 5:59 PM ^
Given the physical nature of it, I agree the NFL had a stronger case.
But that being said, there's a general deferral to labor law in antitrust law. And just my opinion, but courts are hesitatnt to break that deference regarding the sports leagues in a lot of instances.
February 5th, 2018 at 5:55 PM ^
If you trace the history of Antitrust law, it's referred to as the nonstatutory labor exemption. Generally the idea is that the association of employee unions (statutory exemption) is not a violation, so you have to allow the derivative impacts of that (a collective bargining agreement to implement the union gains by an employer or group of employers) under antitrust, otherwise you're basically eliminating the labor law protections that the unions have. So they generally allow some restraint on competition to allow labor law to actually have an impact.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:35 PM ^
In Graham's JR year he had 10 sacks and 20 TFL (led the B1G). His SR year, 26 TFL (led the nation in TFL per game) and 10.5 sacks, was the B1G MVP, 1st All B1G (coaches and media), and mostly 2nd team All-American (though a few gave him 1st team).
He was a great, great player playing on a bad team that still put up enough stats on said bad team to earn lots of honors. That when you talk about Hurst you have to say "best since Graham or Woodley" and realize that's only 10 years is a testiment to the talent along the DL that has come through Michigan. Because outside a Suh or Clowney, there isn't much a tier above that.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:59 PM ^
Not sure where Brian is getting Graham was omitted from All-American teams. He was either 1st or 2nd team on a number of different All-American teams.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:41 PM ^
February 6th, 2018 at 10:26 AM ^
I met him after the Illinois game in 2008. Really nice guy.
I was talking to his mom about injury insurance. She said that they had a $2M policy on Brandon. But they had to pay for it themselves. The NCAA would not help, nor allow any help.
I believe they finally changed that rule.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:42 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 2:13 PM ^
rules are not easy to understand, and the enforcement of the rules is not consistent at all. He was speaking for like 98% of the people who feel the exact opposite than you do.
February 5th, 2018 at 2:18 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 5:54 PM ^
if it was a "clear td" by rule, the review would've taken about ten seconds, ref competence or no...if it was a "clear td" by rule, literally nobody would be talking about it today.
it's a confusing rule.
February 5th, 2018 at 2:26 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 2:41 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 2:46 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 3:45 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 3:34 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
Mitch Daniels is the President of Purdue and former governor of Indiana.
February 5th, 2018 at 1:59 PM ^
Newcastle fans have something in common with Philly fans it seems...
February 5th, 2018 at 2:21 PM ^
You adopt the hockey model. Draft anyone you want at age 18, and you leave them in school until the scouts decide they are ready to contribute as a pro.
The true issue with basketball one and done's is often the scouts have no idea why these kids are coming out because they stink or are not nearly ready.
I would also count one and done's against a college's APR rating as well, so you would no longer have Kentucky type situations unless the entire program would become ineligible for the post season.
February 5th, 2018 at 3:44 PM ^
Agreed. I think the hockey model is best. I would tweak it a bit; the hockey model has some slightly arcane rules, but simpler is better. I would simply set it so that a player can be drafted any time from age 18 through age 23, which gives them six years. An undrafted player just stays eligible. A drafted player can sign with his pro team, or not, until he ages out of draft eligibility or graduates college.
February 6th, 2018 at 12:36 AM ^
Draft at 18, and when they go pro determines the length of the contract.
1 year in college? 4 year guaranteed pro deal. 2 years in college? 3 year pro, etc. Protects the kids - they get paid if they leave school early or skip college. Protects the teams - if it's a bad draft pick, leave them in college to develop and at worst pay them a year. Who says no?
February 5th, 2018 at 2:22 PM ^
"after a year of eating nothing but meatballs"
That got a good chuckle out of me
February 5th, 2018 at 3:01 PM ^
What am I missing? On December 10, DeJulius scores no three pointers, and no free-throws yet scores 33 points? How is that accomplished?
February 5th, 2018 at 3:42 PM ^
I think they just didn't keep precise stats in that game.
February 5th, 2018 at 3:21 PM ^
plain old play action passes were dubbed "RPOs,"
I was wondering WTF he was talking about . . .
Did Foles keep and run even once?
Since the play action to the RB was from the shotgun and not from under center, he decided it was an "RPO".
Um, wrong "runner", Chris.
Stick to the Pro I.
February 5th, 2018 at 3:36 PM ^
RPO in the NFL rarely utilizes a QB run option. The run option is the handoff.
The bigger tip that most of it was play action and not RPO was that the routes were generally down field (with the NFL not allowing OL more than a yard downfield, that wouldn't be an RPO) and the route types don't fit with the RPO scheme. The Pats schemed heavily to take away the RPO game. Unfortunately for them, they took it away and didn't execute well enough elsewhere to prevent the Eagles O from constantly moving the ball.
February 5th, 2018 at 3:48 PM ^
February 5th, 2018 at 3:57 PM ^
I love meatballs.
February 5th, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^
"after a year of eating nothing but meatballs."
What?
February 5th, 2018 at 4:10 PM ^
Just saying he needs to add weight.
Comments